Using players in the AMR/AML positions

I wanted to start some discussion on how people use players in these positions, because I feel as though it's not well understood. I think many people use people in the AMR/AML slots, largely for two reasons.

1. The most prevalent formation in football right now is the 4-3-3/4-5-1.

2. An overwhelming number of wide players are 'natural' in the wide attacking midfield slots.

Most of the formations I see on here where people are struggling seem to use this formation, and as far as I can see, there are two characteristics of wide players in this system.

1. With the exception of a DW/D, your wide players are going to hang out, offering only minimal support to your full backs. In that sense, it really is a 4-3-3 when you're defending.

2. When attacking, these players will be pushed right on to the full backs, meaning that your midfielders may struggle to find them. Indeed, the best way to feed these players is to get the ball to them early, so they can run at the full back, or cut inside in the case of an IF.

Furthermore, if you consider real world cases, how many teams actually play with players in these positions? United's wide players are certainly expected to help out their full backs, but they would be defined as AML/AMR in the game (Young/Nani, etc). For me though, they operate as W/A from the LM/RM area. The same would be true of Dortmund.

There are exceptions. Hazard at Chelsea certainly operates as an IF or an AP from the AML position, and you would say the same of Ribery and Robben at Bayern Munich.

The point I'm making is that people overwhemlingly put players in the AML/AMR positions as a default, because it feels right, and it is how the players are defined in game. In reality, I think these players are usually specialists that are given less defensive responsbility be able to do damage when in possession. As such they are the exception, rather than the rule, and will usually only be found in the very best teams. As a rule, I think wide players tend to operate from the RM/LM positions, with an 'Attack' duty where relevant.

Thoughts, people?

You are 100% correct, and I have been saying this since I joined the forums. People put these players in the AMR/AML positions and then get frustrated when they don't track back. When you make a formation, the TC even names those spots as forwards.

The biggest culprit here on the forums is the 4-2-3-1 with 2 MCs, and I'm off the opinion that no manager uses 2 true MCs in that formation either. At least one or both midfielders should be in the DM spots.

Quite. It's a subtle distinction. The difference between a DLP in the CM slot (as Gerrard currently plays for Liverpool, but with Lucas behind him) and a DLP in the DMC slot (as someone like Alonso or Pirlo play, but as the deepest lying midfielder), for example.

The problem is when you have players that are naturals in the AML/R positions but completely incompetent if dropped back to ML/R, I don't know if that's quite right, but it should maybe depend on the attributes of the player in question. Personally I can't see how a player could suddenly be completely baffled by a role that's a few yards back down the pitch but I'm prepared to be educated on the matter.

The problem is when you have players that are naturals in the AML/R positions but completely incompetent if dropped back to ML/R, I don't know if that's quite right, but it should maybe depend on the attributes of the player in question. Personally I can't see how a player could suddenly be completely baffled by a role that's a few yards back down the pitch but I'm prepared to be educated on the matter.

I completely agree with this, and I think it's probably the main problem. Even in the lower leagues, you see players who are 'Natural' in the AML slot, for example, but useless at ML. In reality, those players are actually left midfielders that get forward, rather than designated left wingers that don't help out the full back.

You have the option to train people in new positions of course.

The problem is when you have players that are naturals in the AML/R positions but completely incompetent if dropped back to ML/R, I don't know if that's quite right, but it should maybe depend on the attributes of the player in question. Personally I can't see how a player could suddenly be completely baffled by a role that's a few yards back down the pitch but I'm prepared to be educated on the matter.

For the most part though, these players are Strikers who can also play out on the flanks. This makes perfect sense for people who play in a 4-3-3 formation with players in the AMR/AML spots. A guy like Eto'o is comfortable out wide as a wide forward, but certainly not as a midfielder who is asked to track back.

I believe the issue lies in how the full backs are used and how people use Support and Attack duties. To use Antonio Valencia as an example he will have a support duty and I'm sure anybody who's watched Utd would agree with that. If we then compare him to Nani I'm sure people would believe Nani would be given an Attack duty, I think this is incorrect. I still believe Nani would be given a support duty just Valencia is a better team player and so is more natural in a support duty.

Now bring in the full back, in an attacking sense they're most effective when getting past the winger and behind the line which would require an Attack duty in FM. Set both full backs to Attack and one of them actually stays back so the duty appears to only become active if the play passes through said players area. The point I'm making is most people would shy away from using two full backs with attack duties but I think if you're going to use wide players in the AM positions you need the full backs to create for space for them to be effective. To balance that off you also need them to support the team whilst defending and for me the correct way to set your full backs and wingers in this scenerio is Attack for the full backs and support on the wingers.

I believe the issue lies in how the full backs are used and how people use Support and Attack duties. To use Antonio Valencia as an example he will have a support duty and I'm sure anybody who's watched Utd would agree with that. If we then compare him to Nani I'm sure people would believe Nani would be given an Attack duty, I think this is incorrect. I still believe Nani would be given a support duty just Valencia is a better team player and so is more natural in a support duty.

Now bring in the full back, in an attacking sense they're most effective when getting past the winger and behind the line which would require an Attack duty in FM. Set both full backs to Attack and one of them actually stays back so the duty appears to only become active if the play passes through said players area. The point I'm making is most people would shy away from using two full backs with attack duties but I think if you're going to use wide players in the AM positions you need the full backs to create for space for them to be effective. To balance that off you also need them to support the team whilst defending and for me the correct way to set your full backs and wingers in this scenerio is Attack for the full backs and support on the wingers.

Interesting. How do you find that works defensively?

Interesting. How do you find that works defensively?

Here is my fixture list for this season,

And here are my career stats,

I completely agree with this, and I think it's probably the main problem. Even in the lower leagues, you see players who are 'Natural' in the AML slot, for example, but useless at ML. In reality, those players are actually left midfielders that get forward, rather than designated left wingers that don't help out the full back.

You have the option to train people in new positions of course.

One of the biggest problems I have with the game is the issue with retraining players to a new position. I mean, using this post as an example, I don't believe that it would take a professional footballer months/years to learn to play a new position that is similar to their natural position. I can't believe that a player who is a natural am-l could possibly require a year of training to become a competent ml. Or, my personal pet peave, a natural am-c playmaker would need months/years to learn to become a wide playmaker in a 4-3-3. I would understand a player being pissed off that they are being asked to operate from a slightly different position (depending on hidden attributes) and maybe complain about it and/or suffer a loss of morale, but the idea that it is possible for an am to have no idea how to play a more standard midfield position is ridiculous.

One of the biggest problems I have with the game is the issue with retraining players to a new position. I mean, using this post as an example, I don't believe that it would take a professional footballer months/years to learn to play a new position that is similar to their natural position. I can't believe that a player who is a natural am-l could possibly require a year of training to become a competent ml. Or, my personal pet peave, a natural am-c playmaker would need months/years to learn to become a wide playmaker in a 4-3-3. I would understand a player being pissed off that they are being asked to operate from a slightly different position (depending on hidden attributes) and maybe complain about it and/or suffer a loss of morale, but the idea that it is possible for an am to have no idea how to play a more standard midfield position is ridiculous.

Really think you're putting too much stock into position familiarity. The fact he has no ability in the position certainly doesn't mean he can't play there, it just means he's uncomfortable. I'm currently using an MC who has no proficiency at DM as my Regista and he gets the highest ratings on my team.

Contary to the belief that AMR/AML hangs about and does not contribute much to the defensive phase, I experimented with Adnan Januzaj out wide as an AML with Winger/S duty and he does in fact track back fairly often. His Teamwork and Work Rate are fairly average at 13 and 11 respectively.

On the other hand however I agree with the fact that players who are naturals at AMR/AML but are baffled by a position a few yards deeper. Its ridiculous, if you can play as a winger then I would damn well expect you to keep playing there regardless whether I drop you starting position a few yards deeper.

I think that if you play someone in the AM wide positions but with a support duty, they will track back regularly. I have tested it a few times and it looks to work.

The problem is that IRL players in the wide AM positions play as if on an attack duty going forward but still track, no idea how to achieve that apart from playing them in ML/MR positions.

Set player to tighter marking.

I think that if you play someone in the AM wide positions but with a support duty, they will track back regularly. I have tested it a few times and it looks to work.

The problem is that IRL players in the wide AM positions play as if on an attack duty going forward but still track, no idea how to achieve that apart from playing them in ML/MR positions.

But this is your interoperation of how an Attack duty works. I think in modern day tactics they're very few attack duties, I like to go over a certain team in real life and assign what I believe the duties would be and in many United teams I've perhaps only given the striker an Attack duty and nobody else. Then go over the Real Madrid team and the only player I can give an Attack duty to is Ronaldo, these are players who described in its simplest way are always looking to attack or score. Go over the Bayern team and I can't give anybody an Attack duty, every player is expected to help out with defending starting with the striker.

However this is where defining the full backs becomes so difficult, we need to change the way we view attack duties with defenders as it doesn't work the way we assume. Although an attack duty will mean an increase in say run with balls the defensive nature of the player means he would only attempt to do so in less risky circumstances than say a midfielder with the same instruction. The opposite rings true for attack players, with a support duty he is still more likely to run with the ball than a defensive player with the same instruction. This is all happening via the mentality/creative freedom slider but we shouldn't concern ourselves with this we just need to understand the game is balancing this out for us.

If we can do that then we can create a system we want. I want my wide players to get crosses into the box (winger) and I want him to help out with defence (support). Or I want my winger to get crosses into the box and also try to get into the box and score as I'm not worried about him defending (attack). Of course a full back with an Attack duty is more at risk of giving the ball away in a dangerous position than the same player with a support duty but that is only true to life, football is always about finding the right balance.

in a possession based system you need the bodies and the runs from deep to try and create space to exploit so the full backs need attack duties. But in a Counter based system they only require support roles, this is because they'll only be involved in the play if you can't get the ball forward quickly. Other than that you're asking 3-4 attacking players to hurry the passage of play and don't worry about the rest of the team. This means you can ask them to make the forward runs all day long but the play is likely to be over by the time they arrive, so with a support duty if an attack does develop then sure get forward and help out but don't make it a priority.

We can think of all the boxes that might be ticked in the background when we select each duty but the simplest way to think of it is with a defend duty the player will look to defend, with a support duty the player will look to support both defence and attack and with an attack duty the player will look to attack.

I always look at duties from a position to the ball perspective, a defend duty will be behind the ball, a support duty around the ball and an attack duty ahead of the ball, This may be over simplifying it but it allows me create balanced tactics. If you're looking to create possession based tactics you need more people behind and around the ball (defend and support), but if you're looking at creating a direct counter attacking tactic you'll need your more forward players with attack duties so they'll always be trying to receive the ball.

But this is your interoperation of how an Attack duty works. I think in modern day tactics they're very few attack duties, I like to go over a certain team in real life and assign what I believe the duties would be and in many United teams I've perhaps only given the striker an Attack duty and nobody else. Then go over the Real Madrid team and the only player I can give an Attack duty to is Ronaldo, these are players who described in its simplest way are always looking to attack or score. Go over the Bayern team and I can't give anybody an Attack duty, every player is expected to help out with defending starting with the striker.

However this is where defining the full backs becomes so difficult, we need to change the way we view attack duties with defenders as it doesn't work the way we assume. Although an attack duty will mean an increase in say run with balls the defensive nature of the player means he would only attempt to do so in less risky circumstances than say a midfielder with the same instruction. The opposite rings true for attack players, with a support duty he is still more likely to run with the ball than a defensive player with the same instruction. This is all happening via the mentality/creative freedom slider but we shouldn't concern ourselves with this we just need to understand the game is balancing this out for us.

If we can do that then we can create a system we want. I want my wide players to get crosses into the box (winger) and I want him to help out with defence (support). Or I want my winger to get crosses into the box and also try to get into the box and score as I'm not worried about him defending (attack). Of course a full back with an Attack duty is more at risk of giving the ball away in a dangerous position than the same player with a support duty but that is only true to life, football is always about finding the right balance.

in a possession based system you need the bodies and the runs from deep to try and create space to exploit so the full backs need attack duties. But in a Counter based system they only require support roles, this is because they'll only be involved in the play if you can't get the ball forward quickly. Other than that you're asking 3-4 attacking players to hurry the passage of play and don't worry about the rest of the team. This means you can ask them to make the forward runs all day long but the play is likely to be over by the time they arrive, so with a support duty if an attack does develop then sure get forward and help out but don't make it a priority.

We can think of all the boxes that might be ticked in the background when we select each duty but the simplest way to think of it is with a defend duty the player will look to defend, with a support duty the player will look to support both defence and attack and with an attack duty the player will look to attack.

I always look at duties from a position to the ball perspective, a defend duty will be behind the ball, a support duty around the ball and an attack duty ahead of the ball, This may be over simplifying it but it allows me create balanced tactics. If you're looking to create possession based tactics you need more people behind and around the ball (defend and support), but if you're looking at creating a direct counter attacking tactic you'll need your more forward players with attack duties so they'll always be trying to receive the ball.

Great post!

Will try and implement some of the above into my tactics tonight!

But this is your interoperation of how an Attack duty works. I think in modern day tactics they're very few attack duties, I like to go over a certain team in real life and assign what I believe the duties would be and in many United teams I've perhaps only given the striker an Attack duty and nobody else. Then go over the Real Madrid team and the only player I can give an Attack duty to is Ronaldo, these are players who described in its simplest way are always looking to attack or score. Go over the Bayern team and I can't give anybody an Attack duty, every player is expected to help out with defending starting with the striker

your post helped me setup a more balanced 4-2-3-1 .

cheers

I think that if you play someone in the AM wide positions but with a support duty, they will track back regularly. I have tested it a few times and it looks to work.

The problem is that IRL players in the wide AM positions play as if on an attack duty going forward but still track, no idea how to achieve that apart from playing them in ML/MR positions.

My AMR and AML are set to Winger (Support) and they never track back. I think that needs to be changed if not by default then we should have an option to tell them to track back.

My AMR and AML are set to Winger (Support) and they never track back. I think that needs to be changed if not by default then we should have an option to tell them to track back.

Could you please explain how you define tracking back? I have to be honest I have NEVER experienced what you've described. I define tracking back as the attacking player coming all the way back to goal, in the match engine you would be looking for what looks like a 5 man defensive line.

If you mean tracking back as in following the full back and closing him down then yes you're correct a support duty would never encourage this without modification however for me this is a characteristic of an attack duty. I don't worry about things like this, I would use opposition instructions if I felt a particular full back had the ability to cause me any problems which to be honest I don't.

If you look at my fixtures further up I got stuffed by Southampton 5-1 and they did that by isolating Luke Shaw, I got over confident in that game as I've just bought Mata and had both Shaw and Mata on attack duties and they identified and exploited that. I conceded 3 goals in 15 minutes and by the time I'd figured out what was going in I was 3-0 down. I now use Mata with a support duty if I play him on the left and if I want to use him with an attack duty I bring him central and put Ozil on the left as my AP-S. I suppose I could have also put Shaw on a defend duty but he's going to offer me more with an Attack duty than Mata would.

I love that game, even though I was stuffed it's my favourite game of this whole save, because I broke away from my regular tactic to accommodate a new player and had a few decent results I compromised my tactic and then the AI figured out the weakness and exploited it. To me that's testament to the match engine.

Really think you're putting too much stock into position familiarity. The fact he has no ability in the position certainly doesn't mean he can't play there, it just means he's uncomfortable. I'm currently using an MC who has no proficiency at DM as my Regista and he gets the highest ratings on my team.

I had a similar thing on last years game playing with Napoli. I religiously played either Inler or Gortezka as a Libero even though they are, in game terms, they should be useless. Absoloutely key players and like you they were regularly the top performers.

Could you please explain how you define tracking back? I have to be honest I have NEVER experienced what you've described. I define tracking back as the attacking player coming all the way back to goal, in the match engine you would be looking for what looks like a 5 man defensive line.

If you mean tracking back as in following the full back and closing him down then yes you're correct a support duty would never encourage this without modification however for me this is a characteristic of an attack duty. I don't worry about things like this, I would use opposition instructions if I felt a particular full back had the ability to cause me any problems which to be honest I don't.

If you look at my fixtures further up I got stuffed by Southampton 5-1 and they did that by isolating Luke Shaw, I got over confident in that game as I've just bought Mata and had both Shaw and Mata on attack duties and they identified and exploited that. I conceded 3 goals in 15 minutes and by the time I'd figured out what was going in I was 3-0 down. I now use Mata with a support duty if I play him on the left and if I want to use him with an attack duty I bring him central and put Ozil on the left as my AP-S. I suppose I could have also put Shaw on a defend duty but he's going to offer me more with an Attack duty than Mata would.

I love that game, even though I was stuffed it's my favourite game of this whole save, because I broke away from my regular tactic to accommodate a new player and had a few decent results I compromised my tactic and then the AI figured out the weakness and exploited it. To me that's testament to the match engine.

I mean exactly that what you wrote in your second paragrah. I play 4-4-2 with AMR and AML. DR and DL are set as Full Back (Automatic). I use Balanced and Standard as my team's philosophy and strategy. If their MR or AMR is attacking my DL and their DR is coming to attack as well then my AML never tracks back and chases down their DR which is in my opinion wrong as it happens in real life. In real life Antonio Valencia play as AMR which is reflected in Football MAnager 2014 given that that's his only natural position and while in real life he would definitely track back in these situations he just doesn't do it in Football Manager 2014. He is even reflected correctly regarding his profile and he still doesn't do that.

Have you tried to put your wingers in player instructions to mark tighter? And maybe try and give them DW role.

Have you tried to put your wingers in player instructions to mark tighter? And maybe try and give them DW role.

Tried with Tighter Marking and still no desired effect. Haven't tried playing them in Defensive Winger as I don't want them to be that. Did try that in FM 12 with Park Ji-Sung on AMR and he still didn't track back, but that's FM 12.

Tried with Tighter Marking and still no desired effect. Haven't tried playing them in Defensive Winger as I don't want them to be that. Did try that in FM 12 with Park Ji-Sung on AMR and he still didn't track back, but that's FM 12.

I'm not sure to be honest, Try pushing your full backs beyond your wingers and see what happens is all I can suggest. My thinking is that maybe having a player behind him makes him behave differently than he would if the full back has just gone beyond and he's the last line of defence.

I have to be honest I've only really noticed Valencia sheppard players (show them inside/outside) when Utd are under pressure, The chasing down a player is more a response to losing the ball and trying to buy the team more time to get it's shape back. Rooney is another one who does it alot in real life, not sure I've noticed it in FM though.

Interesting discussion. Just have a little thing to add. I was playing a 4-2DM-3-1 with counter and two advanced players on support duties. I noticed that when playing fluid most of the players went back in defence under pressure. When I changed to rigid they stayed forward a lot more. I had tight marking on but unsure if that matters.

The tracking back is part of the reason I stick with a flat 4-4-2. With that formation they DO track back, but that brings its own set of problems, as your MR/L tracks back the FB tucks in, which does happen IRL but on Fm14 for me personally they do so very very deep. What happens then, is the four defenders make a line across the goal area which is far too close to the goal.

Actually, I'm not happy with wingers personally as they have two identifiable places to cross. Cross deep, which is rare, or they go to the goal line and cross from there across the six yard box (common in Support and attack duties). This is fundamentally wrong imo, the crosses need to be a bit more in the 'middle' aimed at curling away from the six yard box to tempt the keeper to come out and flap at it. At the moment most crosses ping by the six yard box and get dealt with easily or get nodded in at the near post. Needs to be pulled back a bit, or rather the defence needs to shift forward a bit.

But anyway, I don't use AMR/L's anymore since 12. I'd only ever use them if say, I was using a lone striker as its far too attacking and I much prefer a defensively solid formation.

I've always played with a lone striker up front as an AF and IF on the wings. Been that way for ages now, and don't really see the need to change. In fact I usually just retrain strikers as inside forwards.

Basic setup is something like this...

Control/Fluid

----------AF(A)----------

IF(A)-----EG(A)------IF(A)

-----AP(S)-----DLP(D)----

WB(S)--BPD(X)-CD©---WB(S)

-----------SK(D)-----------

I truly believe in death by football and retaining possession. Even only a few years in with 1860 Munchen I'm regularly seeing over 60% of the possession with my central mids both completing over 100 passes a match with over 90% accuracy. Sure they're not always killer balls, but I don't want that. A lot of people will argue that with so many players set to attack I leave myself exposed but that's not really the case. Even set to attack the Enganche still sits deeper and closes down, which allows me to win the ball back rather quickly and high up the pitch if we lose it in the attacking third, due to the opposition being rushed into making a poor pass.

In attack it morphs into a 3-4-3 with the wingbacks sitting wide to provide support to my EG and AP and the DLP continuing to sit deep with two centerbacks who hold a high line. The AF and IFs interchange really well and I see a lot of nice balls played between the three. (Crossing is at a minimum) While in defence it's a 4-4-1-1. I don't really see the issue with my IFs tracking back. In fact they track back quite a bit. This may be due to my fluidity being set to fluid. It even says in the description that all players are expected to contribute to all areas of play or something along those lines. The players that the most is expected of is my wingbacks. They have to have stamina or they just aren't going to cut it in my side. They bomb forward and rush back just as quickly. I also have to say that while some have said wingers get isolated, I've never seen that to be the case, in fact my IFs see a huge share of the ball and tend to use it to just run at defenders.

Tried with Tighter Marking and still no desired effect. Haven't tried playing them in Defensive Winger as I don't want them to be that. Did try that in FM 12 with Park Ji-Sung on AMR and he still didn't track back, but that's FM 12.

Actually it rather sounds like you want that, albeit cutting inside.

Actually it rather sounds like you want that, albeit cutting inside.

Like I want what? I don't want to play my winger in Defensive Winger role. s simple as that. I want them as Wingers (Attack) or (Support).

Like I want what? I don't want to play my winger in Defensive Winger role. s simple as that. I want them as Wingers (Attack) or (Support).

You're contradicting yourself. Wingers in AML/R position don't track back. Defensive wingers do the same things as wingers except they defend as well. Of course they still won't track back too far from that position but it's more of what you ask for. What you do want is indeed defensive wingers, you just don't seem to like the description.

As for Antonio Valencia being only natural in the AMR slot, that has to be a data issue. Man Utd never play with wingers that behave like the AML/R in FM. In terms of positioning, Valencia plays MR in FM terms. Defensive winger is actually the role that does describe him the best, along with stay wide, hold position and run wide with ball instructions. Same with someone like Nani, like the OP says. In FM terms Nani's position if you want to emulate what United do in reality should be MR as a winger(A).

The opening post in this thread is excellent and hits the nail on the head when it comes to advanced wingers. Sadly the rest of the discussion has simply gone down the same old route of trying to figure out how to do something in the game that is not meant to be done. If you play with advanced wingers you can expect some tracking back on the right settings, but never the same effort as you get from the wide midfield positions. That's the whole point. The higher starting point emphasizes the players as outlets and as such they must stick to their position to at least a degree. Something they just couldn't do if they dropped back to their own box to defend.

Not sure we understood each other. I've explained everything in post #21. The fact is that AMR/AML with Winger (Support) role and duty are not doing what they should do (also what they do IRL). What Mattp1980 said in post #19 (second paragraph).

Not sure we understood each other. I've explained everything in post #21. The fact is that AMR/AML with Winger (Support) role and duty are not doing what they should do (also what they do IRL). What Mattp1980 said in post #19 (second paragraph).

What someone does IRL is irrelevant in this context because positioning in FM cannot be directly translated into real life tactics. AML/R in general absolutely are doing what they're supposed to in the game, you just have a different idea of what this should be. As I said already, the behavior you want to see can be achieved by using these players in a deeper position with a more attacking duty, or - to an extent - by using a relevant role, which is defensive winger. But advanced wingers will never fully track back like wide midfielders because that would mitigate the reason they're set to play there in the first place. That includes the W(s) role because frankly, if you want a winger who tracks back all the way you wouldn't set their starting position that high. It contradicts what your trying to achieve and, more importantly, is physically impossible.

Basically I suggest you read the OP again and digest the point it's trying to make. AMR/L are very specific positions and expect a very specific behavior from the players.

What someone does IRL is irrelevant in this context because positioning in FM cannot be directly translated into real life tactics. AML/R in general absolutely are doing what they're supposed to in the game, you just have a different idea of what this should be. As I said already, the behavior you want to see can be achieved by using these players in a deeper position with a more attacking duty, or - to an extent - by using a relevant role, which is defensive winger. But advanced wingers will never fully track back like wide midfielders because that would mitigate the reason they're set to play there in the first place. That includes the W(s) role because frankly, if you want a winger who tracks back all the way you wouldn't set their starting position that high. It contradicts what your trying to achieve and, more importantly, is physically impossible.

Basically I suggest you read the OP again and digest the point it's trying to make. AMR/L are very specific positions and expect a very specific behavior from the players.

I would also add that the volunteer data research doesn't always (in fact, it frequently doesn't) align with the design of the game itself. This constitutes researcher error rather than ME error. And FWIW, positional maps of United matches will show Valencia positioned much closer to the deep midfielders than the withdrawn forward.

SO , somewhat OT. I always under the impression there was some sort of ME penalty for playing players out of position, ie playing an AML at ML if he cant play there.

Is this not actually the case ?

SO , somewhat OT. I always under the impression there was some sort of ME penalty for playing players out of position, ie playing an AML at ML if he cant play there.

Is this not actually the case ?

General knowledge (or folklore, depending on how you think of it) is that their decisions attribute takes a hit. It's not THAT big of a hit though, I often play people completely out of position according to the game but if their attributes match what I want from them they still manage to do fine.

I would also add that the volunteer data research doesn't always (in fact, it frequently doesn't) align with the design of the game itself. This constitutes researcher error rather than ME error. And FWIW, positional maps of United matches will show Valencia positioned much closer to the deep midfielders than the withdrawn forward.

Just to confirm this, the average United positions form yesterdays Cardiff game can be seen here, with Valencia only slightly ahead of Smalling on the right and more in line with Cleverly/Fellaini then near Welbeck/Rooney/Hernandez

Just to confirm this, the average United positions form yesterdays Cardiff game can be seen here, with Valencia only slightly ahead of Smalling on the right and more in line with Cleverly/Fellaini then near Welbeck/Rooney/Hernandez

So this confirms that United (like most teams in Europe IMO) play a 4-4-1-1 and not a 4-2-3-1.

So this confirms that United (like most teams in Europe IMO) play a 4-4-1-1 and not a 4-2-3-1.

I would say either a 4411 or an asymmetric 433 depending on the opposition.

Just to confirm this, the average United positions form yesterdays Cardiff game can be seen here, with Valencia only slightly ahead of Smalling on the right and more in line with Cleverly/Fellaini then near Welbeck/Rooney/Hernandez

That confirms nothing. United played deeper than usual against Cardiff because Rooney was awful.

I would say either a 4411 or an asymmetric 433 depending on the opposition.

4-2-3-1 is (frequently) an asymmetric 4-3-3. Indeed, originally, it was always an asymmetric 4-3-3 - at any rate, 4-2-3-1 is in the 4-3-3 family, or, possibly, in the 4-5-1 family, depending on phase/interpretation/blah blah. It's also not actually far dissimilar to 4-4-1-1. It depends how you interpret movement between lines, or, indeed, if you care about the lines at all. (And in some modes of thought, they're irrelevant in the modern game.)

You are 100% correct, and I have been saying this since I joined the forums. People put these players in the AMR/AML positions and then get frustrated when they don't track back. When you make a formation, the TC even names those spots as forwards.

The biggest culprit here on the forums is the 4-2-3-1 with 2 MCs, and I'm off the opinion that no manager uses 2 true MCs in that formation either. At least one or both midfielders should be in the DM spots.

I'd argue that Arsenal at times this season have played like 2 MC's

Also you can use roles to make MC's act like DM's in defence while being further forward in better areas in attack

I use AMR/L because more players are natural and I frequently use inside forwards which is a role not available for MR/ML. I often use support duties for at least one or both to mean they track back more and set them to hastle opponents so they press defence

has anyone tries using APs on both AMR/L

Has anyone mentioned that the formation we work from is the defensive shape?

I think this is more a data issue than a ME issue. An AMR/L player will not track back very diligently, and to be honest he shouldn't because he is an attacking outlet meant to make himself available for a pass when the team is not in possession. Looking at the attributes of the "usual" AMR/L player, his Work Rate and Team Work is likely to be quite low along with the other defensive skillset. I am unsure whether this reflects the FM position in general or if there is no such thing as an AMRL player... only lazy MRL players...

This could be said about the whole AMRLC strata. Is an AMC just a lazy MC (or one who is expecting to be a main attacking outlet), or is he a striker who thrives with players in front of him? Which teams actually play with AMRLC players, and who do they use there?

The team I have watched the most this year is Molde FK, and Ole Gunnar Solskjær uses the 4231 with wingers. I guess he likes his players to play roughly the same way regardless of who he starts with, but the shape is very different depending on who plays where. Jo Inge Berget usually play in what is the AMC role in FM, behind the striker. However, when defending he ends up like a DLF-S, never really closing down their midfield - so the shape of OGS's 4231 when he plays is more like a 424 with a Trequartista or DLF-S. The top goalscorer was striker Daniel Chima Chukwu, but the last half of the season he played as the AML so the goals sort of stopped coming. Anyways, as the right-footed striker he is, he cut inside early and even though he is very hard-working he truly resembled FM's AML-A (or IF-A) role most of the time. On the other flank Mattias Moström often started, and his effort much more resembled a MR in FM. He is simply put more aware of his defensive duties. This is also reflected when he starts in the AML position - the side he plays on is tighter defensively, even in the span of a single match. Brazilian teenager Agnaldo has been a vicar for Berget in some games, and in those games whoever played striker became rather isolated, since Agnaldo joins the forward ranks much more rarely than Berget does. He resides deeper and moves into channels like a Trequartista type.

Now, the REAL question is if Solskjær plays assymetrically and switches between 433 and 41221 and 4321 Wide and 451 and 4411 and 424 and 442 depending on who is starting eleven is, or if he always play a 4231 but the shape changes because each player behaves naturally according to their skillset or attributes/ppm's. I think this is a very important philosophical question for both SI and us users.